Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38863985›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2024

Observational studies: practical tips for avoiding common statistical pitfalls.

Anna Freni Sterrantino

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. High dietary BGut microbes · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 8. Guard against statistical fallacies in medical research.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Effect of Physical Activity on Drug Expenditures for the Physical and Mental Health of Primary Care Users.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Subcutaneous application ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anna Freni SterrantinoThe Alan Turing Institute, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Personal View is intended for early-career researchers who are not yet experts in statistics. The Personal View focuses on common but usually avoidable flaws in the context of observational studies. I point out how study design, data collection, and statistical methods impact statistical results and research conclusions. With particular attention to study planning, sample selection, biases, lack of transparency and results misinterpretations.

Indexed as

BiasGood practicesInferenceObservational study designStatistical checklistStatistical methodologyStatistical pitfalls

Identifiers

PMID38863985
PMCPMC11166024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.